Brady v. Von Drehle Corporation

Filing 40

Order by Hon. Vince Chhabria granting 30 Motion to Transfer Case to the Western District of North Carolina.(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

JAMES BRADY,

Case No. 14-cv-01732-VC

Plaintiff,

7

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
8
9

v.
VON DREHLE CORPORATION,
Re: Dkt. No. 30

10

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The motion to transfer the case is granted. Brady lives in Ohio and has no ties to the

13

Northern District of California. Von Drehle is incorporated and headquartered in Hickory, North

14

Carolina, within the Western District of North Carolina. Its main operations are there and it has

15

no facilities in the Northern District of California. Most of the party and non-party witnesses

16

identified in the parties' submissions are located in North Carolina, along the east coast, or in

17

Europe (setting aside for now whether those witnesses are legally appropriate). All relevant

18

documents appear to be located in North Carolina, including all financial records and documents

19

related to the design, marketing, distribution, and sales of the challenged products. Litigating this

20

case in North Carolina will therefore be less expensive and more convenient. And to the extent

21

there is local interest in this case, it is greater in North Carolina, where the defendant operates.

22

Finally, the courts in both districts are presumed equally familiar with patent law. In re TS Tech

23

U.S. Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

24

Brady argues that one of Von Drehle's 300 third-party distributors is located in Monterey,

25

California, and that Von Drehle has a paper towel manufacturing plant in Nevada. But there is no

26

indication that the Monterey distributor or the Nevada plant possesses any unique or

27

noncumulative information. Indeed, Brady's Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures do not list representatives

28

from either the distributor or the plant as potential witnesses. See Higgins Decl., Ex. 1 at 2. And

1

the Nevada plant does not even produce the paper towels used in the challenged dispensers. See

2

Reply at 5. Therefore, these connections, to the extent they are real ones at all, do not nearly tip

3

the balance in favor of litigating the case in the Northern District of California.

4

Brady also contends that the Western District of North Carolina and the Northern District

5

of California are equally convenient for him, dismissing as insignificant the approximately four

6

hours in added travel time. Even if the two districts were equally convenient for Brady, North

7

Carolina is significantly more convenient and less expensive for the defendant and for non-party

8

witnesses.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

The case is transferred to the Western District of North Carolina. Brady's request for
discovery is denied. The Clerk is directed to transfer and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 25, 2014
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2